India is going to stick to its earlier stand and stand by Mauritius in this fight against UK's colonial history and the rights of exiled islanders to return.

advertisement

Geeta Mohan

New Delhi

September 4, 2018

UPDATED: September 5, 2018 13:40 IST

Judges at the United Nations' highest court are listening to arguments in a case focused on whether Britain illegally maintains sovereignty over the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean (Photo: AP)

International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague has begun a four-day hearing for advisory opinion on 'Legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965'.

The session will hear from representatives of 22 countries and the African Union (AU) in a dispute over the contentious Chagos island between Mauritius and the United Kingdom (UK). Although a significant move by Mauritius to drag Britain to the world court, the ICJ's judgment will be advisory, rather than legally binding.

The hearing which started on September 3, with oral hearings from representatives of Mauritius and UK, will end on September 6. India will be represented by Indian envoy in Netherlands Ambassador Venu Rajamony. He will make India's submissions on September 5.

India is going to stick to its earlier stand and stand by Mauritius in this fight against UK's colonial history and the rights of exiled islanders to return. India, as a country that has gone through the throes of decolonisation, since its own independence in 1947, has always been in the forefront of the struggle against colonialism and apartheid.

In June 2017 at the United Nations General Assembly, India supported the draft resolution on the same matter in favour of Mauritius. Indian Permanent Representative to the UN had said, "As part of our longstanding support to all peoples striving for decolonisation, we have also consistently supported Mauritius, a fellow developing country from Africa with whom we have age-old people to people bonds, in their quest for the restoration of their sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago."

The fate of the Indian Ocean archipelago would have major ramifications not only on Mauritius and the United Kingdom, the stakeholders in the dispute, but also on the United States of America.

The dispute dates back to 1965 when Mauritius attained freedom but UK decided to keep the the Chagos Islands which according to Mauritius was in violation of 1960 UN resolution 1514, which specifically banned the breakup of colonies before independence.

The deal that was struck with the United States that allowed building of a US airbase on Diego Garcia island (a part of the Chagos Islands) in 1971 impacted around 1,500 inhabitants who were deported and never allowed to return.

Mauritius, on the first day of the hearing on Monday, was represented by former Prime Minister Anerood Jugnauth who presented documents to the ICJ to prove that Britain retained possession of the Chagos archipelago in the Indian Ocean with duress, tremendous pressure and through secret threats.

Anerood Jugnauth told the court, "The official records which only come to light many years later reveal that during the first two meetings on the 13th and 20th of September 1965, Mauritian representatives had indeed expressed strenuous opposition to the proposal to detach the Chagos archipelago. In the face of this opposition, the then British Prime Minister Harold Wilson decided to have a private word with Sir Seewosagar. Speaking notes prepared for Prime Minister Wilson set out to have been clear and unambiguous that the object of that meeting was to frighten Sir Seewosagar with hope that he might get independence; Fright he might not unless he is sensible about the detachment of the Chagos archipelago."

Explaining at length the circumstances the Mauritian representative said that the choice given to Sir Seewosagar (who led the Mauritian delegation in 1965 negotiations) was either to agree to detach Chagos from Mauritius and attain independence or return home without independence.

Addressing the court Jugnauth said, "Mr. President, the administering power now contends that Mauritius freely consented to the detachment of the Chagos archipelago yet the choice we were faced with was no choice at all. It was independence on condition of agreement or no independence."

On a crucial issue of the fate of the military base in Diego Garcia, Mauritius has decided to allay America's fears by committing to continuation of the base operations even if the archipelago is handed over to Mauritius.

"Mauritius has been clear that the request for an advisory opinion is not intended to bring into question the presence of the base on Diego Garcia, only one of the islands of the Chagos archipelago. Mauritius recognises its existence and has repeatedly made it clear to the United States and the administering power that it accepts the future operation of the base in accordance with international law. This is a solemn commitment on behalf of Mauritius and we trust the court will recognise it as such", said the Mauritian.

Appearing for the UK, Solicitor General Robert Buckland QC MP, at the outset while accepted that the treatment meted out to Chagossian community was "shameful", urged the ICJ to reject the request for an advisory opinion: "The court is, in reality, being asked to resolve a sovereignty dispute", he said.

He added, "At the outset let me say that the United Kingdom reiterates that our stated position in its written statement and its oral comments, it fully accepts the manner in which the Chagossians were removed from the Chagos archipelago and the way they were treated thereafter was shameful and wrong and we deeply regret that fact."

The UK, without giving a fixed date, promised to return the Chagos islands to Mauritius when they are no longer needed for defence purposes.